While tootling around the web last night, I came across a blog post about abortion. The entry was advocating the pro-life position. While I am ardently pro-choice, I can respect the other position...provided that the person is consistent. Often times, however, I find the folks who are the most vociferous re opposing abortion to be the same folks that don't seem to support programs and policies that show much concern for the children who result from the saved fetuses!
For example, it boggles my pea-sized brain that a person could be pro-life, yet also pro-war. Has it ever dawned on them that these two positions are inconsistent? They want to extend all sorts of rights to the unborn, but seem willing to sacrifice those very same lives. It's like they would do anything in their power to insure that the fetus becomes a human being, but, once it IS a human being, then their life becomes expendable.
I also find that many people who are pro-life are against such radical notions as Head Start, public education, food stamps, welfare, a minimum wage, universal health care, and/or gang prevention programs. Again, from my perspective, this is wholly inconsistent. If it's so important to you that each fetus can develop into a human being, why don't you support policies and programs that provide those saved human beings with the things they may need to live a decent life?
It seems that a fetus is like a Teddy Bear. As long as it's a quasi-formed thing in a womb, people can project all sorts of warm and fuzzy personality traits onto it and theorize about its esteemed potential. It becomes some sort of ideal. However, the moment it is born and becomes a unique individual -- one you may not like nor approve of -- then all bets are off and this human being is completely on its own.
For example, it boggles my pea-sized brain that a person could be pro-life, yet also pro-war. Has it ever dawned on them that these two positions are inconsistent? They want to extend all sorts of rights to the unborn, but seem willing to sacrifice those very same lives. It's like they would do anything in their power to insure that the fetus becomes a human being, but, once it IS a human being, then their life becomes expendable.
I also find that many people who are pro-life are against such radical notions as Head Start, public education, food stamps, welfare, a minimum wage, universal health care, and/or gang prevention programs. Again, from my perspective, this is wholly inconsistent. If it's so important to you that each fetus can develop into a human being, why don't you support policies and programs that provide those saved human beings with the things they may need to live a decent life?
It seems that a fetus is like a Teddy Bear. As long as it's a quasi-formed thing in a womb, people can project all sorts of warm and fuzzy personality traits onto it and theorize about its esteemed potential. It becomes some sort of ideal. However, the moment it is born and becomes a unique individual -- one you may not like nor approve of -- then all bets are off and this human being is completely on its own.
You hit the nail on the head with this one!
ReplyDeleteIt makes "them" crazy when I say that I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice! All I can hear is, "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!"
ReplyDeleteI know that for me (a man) I feel if I were a woman, I could not make the choice... (to have an abortion)but thats me. Your choice is yours. And who am I to judge?
1. Your criticism applies in reverse to your own position: How can you be anti-war, yet still in favour of allowing people to kill fetuses for the sake of convenience?
ReplyDelete2. People who are against these various welfare state programs you list generally don't think that having "a decent life" is determined by whether one has access to these types of social programs. In fact, I suspect such people usually believe these kind of programs undermine the potential for "a decent life" in many ways, both for the individual recipients of such programs and the individuals who are made to provide them. This opposition is not an inconsistency for anyone who is "pro-life."
Tao1776,
ReplyDeleteI've always thought that if I were a woman that would be my position too. But who knows what your or my position might be under that unlikely circumstance.
Eastwall,
As to point 1, I don't consider a fetus in the first several weeks a human, so in that case, I see no inconsistency.
As point 2, since a lot of mothers are financially poor, how else do you propose they make for a decent environment for their children? This is a particularly pertinent question these days as unemployment is hovering around 10% nationwide.
Are you suggesting that only rich people can have sex?
Well, a fetus is a living human being. (It is a member of the species.) But I suppose what you mean is you don't consider a fetus a legal person entitled to protection from being killed (at least for the first several weeks).
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, the pro-lifers you criticize don't oppose social programs out of malice towards poor families and children. Rather, they consider them to be detrimental overall both to living individuals and to society. In the same way you've done, they can say, "I don't consider these social programs beneficial, so in that case, I see no inconsistency." This is a disagreement about what government policy should be, about the nature of social programs and their effects. It's not an inconsistency or hypocrisy in the pro-life position.
I'm not looking to debate about the financially poor providing a decent life for their offspring, social programs, or your rhetorical question about sex (which implies a right to abortion as birth control to deal with the inevitable consequences of sex) here. We all know there are a million places online where those debates are rehashed ceaselessly.
I am against the taking of life on principle. However, it is not as easy as that. If someone waas trying to kill me and I killed him in self defense - you get my drift...
ReplyDelete